Elliot Rodgers - Parents

This kid obviously had a combination of narcissism and borderline personality disorder (the two usually come together). I'm not sure where the
aspergers diagnosis came from, but I am positive, given the nature of the disorder, that 5 out of 10 (or even more) mental health professionals would
have disagreed with the diagnosis.

Nobody becomes that #ed up without having parents that failed to instil in him a primal awareness of love and connection. The aspergers diagnosis
wreaks of "cop-out". I wouldn't be surprised if the parents went from psychiatrist to psychiatrist where a diagnosis that didn't implicate their
role in the DEVELOPMENT of the his pathology didn't occur. This needs to be pointed out. Of course, his bizarre and vicious ideation is something
that couldn't have been predicted, but it didn't occur in a vacuum. There needed to be some basic mental representational model of relating and
seeing the world - something the parents provide - that allows this ideation to develop.

Clearly, he came from a family with no sense of cohesion. He was starved of love. His dad likely spent most of his time out and dating women. He seems
to have had no real connection with his mother. In this repulsive environment of meaninglessness and his constant exposure to "wealth and success",
he had nothing left to think about but his feelings of envy and jealousy for what he felt he didn't have. This is where the borderline pathology
comes into play. Nobody develops the type of hatred that he had unless his sense of self and identity was bound up with an ideal of sexual prowess and
financial success. His father and mother clearly fits the bill as the probable reason for this lack of a sense of a self. This implies very poor early
life relationship with his parents and a constant exposure to the things he became obsessively envious of. Perhaps this was a topic of conversation in
his home? Maybe his fathers struggles became internalized in his young mind as his own? And instead of receiving the normal connection that allows a
Self to develop, his mind was bound up with his fathers mind, which meant that in order for him to experience a sense of self, he had to "achieve"
these things he so desperately wanted.

I am of course not excusing these despicable actions. But it's absolutely necessary that people understand that Elliot Rodgers wasn't some enigma
with "aspergers". In all likelihood, he was borderline and had suffered traumas early on his life from very poor and absent parental connection.
This is where his psychotic ideations came from.

And suppose you retort that his parents had brought him to a psychiatrist from age and onwards? That merely shows that his thinking and acting was
disturbed early on. But clearly, this didn't lead to any concrete and sustainable ways of relating. Any normal parent would have continued to monitor
him: especially when he was as vocal and public about his hatred. But his parents were only half involved. They acted when it became too apparent to
ignore. And unfortunately for them, they now have to live with the fact of what they contributed to producing. Elliot's actions were his alone. But
the person he became, and the thoughts that he entertained, only existed because he had parents who failed to connect with him and imbibe in him
values that weren't dependent on external success.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
This kid obviously had a combination of narcissism and borderline personality disorder (the two usually come together). I'm not sure where the
aspergers diagnosis came from, but I am positive, given the nature of the disorder, that 5 out of 10 (or even more) mental health professionals would
have disagreed with the diagnosis.

Nobody becomes that #ed up without having parents that failed to instil in him a primal awareness of love and connection. The aspergers diagnosis
wreaks of "cop-out". I wouldn't be surprised if the parents went from psychiatrist to psychiatrist where a diagnosis that didn't implicate their
role in the DEVELOPMENT of the his pathology didn't occur. This needs to be pointed out. Of course, his bizarre and vicious ideation is something
that couldn't have been predicted, but it didn't occur in a vacuum. There needed to be some basic mental representational model of relating and
seeing the world - something the parents provide - that allows this ideation to develop.

Clearly, he came from a family with no sense of cohesion. He was starved of love. His dad likely spent most of his time out and dating women. He seems
to have had no real connection with his mother. In this repulsive environment of meaninglessness and his constant exposure to "wealth and success",
he had nothing left to think about but his feelings of envy and jealousy for what he felt he didn't have. This is where the borderline pathology
comes into play. Nobody develops the type of hatred that he had unless his sense of self and identity was bound up with an ideal of sexual prowess and
financial success. His father and mother clearly fits the bill as the probable reason for this lack of a sense of a self. This implies very poor early
life relationship with his parents and a constant exposure to the things he became obsessively envious of. Perhaps this was a topic of conversation in
his home? Maybe his fathers struggles became internalized in his young mind as his own? And instead of receiving the normal connection that allows a
Self to develop, his mind was bound up with his fathers mind, which meant that in order for him to experience a sense of self, he had to "achieve"
these things he so desperately wanted.

I am of course not excusing these despicable actions. But it's absolutely necessary that people understand that Elliot Rodgers wasn't some enigma
with "aspergers". In all likelihood, he was borderline and had suffered traumas early on his life from very poor and absent parental connection.
This is where his psychotic ideations came from.

And suppose you retort that his parents had brought him to a psychiatrist from age and onwards? That merely shows that his thinking and acting was
disturbed early on. But clearly, this didn't lead to any concrete and sustainable ways of relating. Any normal parent would have continued to monitor
him: especially when he was as vocal and public about his hatred. But his parents were only half involved. They acted when it became too apparent to
ignore. And unfortunately for them, they now have to live with the fact of what they contributed to producing. Elliot's actions were his alone. But
the person he became, and the thoughts that he entertained, only existed because he had parents who failed to connect with him and imbibe in him
values that weren't dependent on external success.

The fact of the matter is, is that there are millions of people just like him, who do not do these things. People learn to cope in a civil way.
Fp

I do accept that his parents should have been more on the ball and perhaps this could have been avoided. That's really the only lesson that can be
learnt from this.

Trying to blame the rest of society for his actions just struck me as weak and somewhat pathetic. He was bitter that he couldn't get a girl, here's
a tip: Drop your standards. Stop going for the beautiful, skinny, airhead blondes that wouldn't even fart your way.

I can't help but agree with you. Parents don't want to take responsibility for their failure, and until they do nothing will change.
Toddlers are now being put on psychotropic drugs for ADHD. We are seeing the stark results of how well that works! ADD,ADHD, aspergers are nothing
new, their just a more modern label for high-energy kids.
We used to keep kids like that busy, and lots of outdoor activity was a major part of their routine. Sending kids out to play isn't as safe as it once
was, and we no longer have Mom at home to keep a close eye on activities. She's working right along with Dad, trying to scrape by.
Some of these kids don't have the same rate of learning that the norm does; they repeat the same mistakes over and over again before the consequences
for their actions finally sink in. It takes so much more time and effort on the parents part to integrate a kid like that into society; time that
parents don't have a lot of these days....so the easy fix is to drug the child to a manageable level. Years of these drugs have a very, very negative
effect on the mind, and offer absolutely no learning of coping skills to handle life with. Quite the reverse, they seem to be creating mental demons
that devour the personality from the inside out.
More and more kids these days seem to be having personality problems from early childhood. I think pollution from our environment and food chain plays
the biggest part in that.
One thing is blatantly obvious: parenting skills of the past are ineffective for the fast-paced electronic society we live in. Children aren't
receiving the nurturing they so desperately need in their early, formative years. They're being doped up and dumbed down instead.

Read his own statements in his "manifesto." It's basically his memoir from 3rd grade right up until what he called "The Day of Retribution." I
think you'll find that you're way off base.

He was starved of love. His dad likely spent most of his time out and dating women. He seems to have had no real connection with his
mother.

None of these things appear to be true at all based on his own words.

This implies very poor early life relationship with his parents and a constant exposure to the things he became obsessively envious of. Perhaps
this was a topic of conversation in his home? Maybe his fathers struggles became internalized in his young mind as his own.

Again, this doesn't seem to be the case. Take the time to read his story in his own words before you go casting aspersions against his parents.

True, and I did point that out when I said "no one could have predicted...". But that does not mean we should ignore the etiology. To me, this
situation is eminently explicable. Extremely poor parenting + Absurd context. I can't imagine another place on this planet where being a virgin at
age 22 would lead to this response, but Hollywood, California. This is where he grew up. This is where his absurd pathology was allowed to thrive and
become what it did.

I'm more so writing this to shed light on the idea that the parents are victims. If anything, they should feel some sense of responsibility (which I
doubt they have the self awareness to acknowledge). Just reading some of this kids "manifesto " reveals a home life where a dad is always out and
his mother is living elsewhere dating George Lucas. Essentially describing an environment where he has no significant relationships to develop a sense
of self. To cement this point, simply watch his videos where he speaks; its clear that this kid operated in a state of contrived mentalism. This means
he didn't speak "from his body". Instead, it looked as if he were self-consciously engineering his behaviors. To get an idea of this pathological
way of being, imagine saying something, but without any felt sense of emotion in the body. Some psychologists refer to this as "dissociation". It's
pretty much impossible to make friends or attract other people, least of all members of the other sex, when you can't access your own emotions.

This is what leads me to wonder what kind of early life this kid had. His absurd fixation with the things he felt to be important indicates:
narcissism, and his inability to decouple himself from this "ideal" implies a borderline state of mind. Normal people are able to entertain
alternative realities, whereas borderline people are absolutely stuck in the infantile and early childhood representations (mental models) that they
developed early on in life.

i would LOVE, as a psychologist, to interview the father, mother and friends of the family to get an idea of what sort of early life this kid had. As
I said earlier, his fixation with the things he wanted in life were undlubtedly related to attitudes he was exposed to early on in life.

Again, I am not defending this kids actions. The vast majority of people with Borderline personality disorder do not commit murder, let alone go on
rampages. But I think a major determinating factor may have been the environment he grew up in. Having a director father and an actress mother had him
thinking in a dramaturgical way: as if he were acting. And life was this big 'stage" from which he could "become a god". It was the combination of
these different factors, piss poor parenting -> developmental trauma -> borderline pathology -> dramaturgical consciousness, that led him to fixate on
murdering people and thus finally become "immortal", which is to say, find significance.

No offense, I already took the time reading parts of his manifesto (It's 107,000 words long, which would be a very long novel, so I'm not going to
waste my time reading the whole thing). So I've only read the abridged version.

And secondly, as a psychologist, I'm aware enough not to trust the distorted perceptions of a kid who went on to kill people. What I do know, is that
borderline patients tend to have extremely distorted ideas about their parents and other relationships.

In one interview I was watching, a guy who knew Elliot said he would often "come on too strong" when trying to pick up a girl. What does that mean?
It implies a few things: one, he was too narcissistically involved to recognize the pathology of his own awareness. And as a consequence, he wasn't
even aware that he was coming on too strong.

Borderline people don't recognize that they don't relate to the world in a normal way. They literally have defense systems in their mind preventing
them from mentalizing (giving cognitive representation to) what they're feeling. As such, the majority of their views are distorted by their
unrecognized emotional dynamics.

How we are as adults is not some coincidence. Developmental psychology and neuroscience has given us very good reason to believe that the bulk of the
adult personality is predicated upon early life engagements. The infant brain is only 20% completed. The first 2-3 years of life is where the majority
of the limbic system and higher emotional centers develop. This means environmental factors - signals from the parent - GUIDE gene transcription in
neurons and thus brain development.

Elliot was as #ed as he was because his parents did a very very bad job helping him develop a sense of self.

I know you don't need convincing, but "attachment" really is a vital process for healthy psychological development. Unfortunately, it happens so
unconsciously for so many people that it's importance only becomes apparent in its absence.

Today I was reading the famous poem "invictus". It's basically about the strength of the human spirit, etc. As I read it, I thought to myself
"yes, this is a fantastic poem, definitely inspired..... but it is unaware of it's own presumptuousness". Human beings don't possess resilience
unless THEY"VE LEARNED IT FROM OTHERS. Resilience is otherwise known in neuropsychology as "affect regulation" i.e. ones ability to regulate
emotional states. Abilities like these aren't some "given", although they might seem so to us. Evolution doesn't equip us with this ability from
the get-go. Rather, it equips us with this skill VIA PARENTING. Why do, for example, parents speak to their babies in a markedly different way? That
is, why do they raise their voices and exaggerate intonation? This is a PRIMAL INSTINCT which is often treated as "there simply because its there".
This is what people think. We do it, but "we don't know why". Like sailors at sea suffering from scurvy, we don't know the value of something
until it's gone. Human beings need vitamin C from fruits and vegetables. The human organism depends on it for it to thrive. Likewise, human beings
have evolved a tendency of communicating with infants in a MARKED i.e. different way than they would with adults. Why is this? Developmental
Psychologists have come to a consensus that marked communication is designed to provide infants with a SENSE OF SELF. Why? When you speak normally to
someone, that is, what you say accurately represents your emotions in your voice, then I know that it is YOU I am speaking with. There is a one to one
correspondence between your emotional state and your speech. And this is what is received by the other person. But this way of speaking isn't
appropriate with a newborn infant, simply because a newborn infant doesn't have anything we can call a self. They aren't exactly a blank slate
either, they do have primitive instincts and they're brains are designed to follow a certain developmental pathway, but in order for these capacities
to unfold, it has to be exposed to the proper external stimuli.

Marked communication allows the newborn to feel a sense of safety and connection with it's environment. Real responses are too overwhelming. A mother
who reflects her true emotional states to her child is bound to create anxiety and fear in its mind. And how do people respond to anxiety and fear?
With alertness. The mothers state, or conversely, the fathers state, becomes internalized in the baby as ITS OWN STATE. Because the self does not yet
exist - there are no reflective structures in place to distinguish emotional states as THEIR OWN - the baby exposed to frightening emotions i.e. real
emotions (something people with borderline personality tendencies can't help but ingrain in their children...hence it is a vicious self perpetuating
pathology) will come to see the world in a similar way. If mommy always reacts angrily when the baby makes a mistake, then the baby is likely going to
show the same lack of impulse control. The exact direction that pathology takes may be dependent on genetics (i.e one can turn inwards and develop
intense shyness and lack of affect, or conversely, will be unruly and abusive in their relationships with others) but this too can be modulated by
intensity of disorder.

I suspect that Elliot had extremely negligent parents. His dad probably was/is a narcissist, who dated frequently. His struggles to become a director
of movies - and not commercials - was likely a frequent topic of conversation at home. And of course in these conversations, frustration and anger was
heard in the voice. So I think it's absolutely safe to say that Elliot likely internalized these same sort of values. Life meant "money, cars, and
women".

However, many kids grow up in this sort of context and don't go on to develop a borderline pathology and certainly do not go on rampages. This means
Elliots father-mother may have been abusive and negligent in other ways. I am leaning towards negligent, as his mother seemed to be preoccupied with
dating rich directors like George Lucas while his dad was out finding work. This forlorn environment often leads to "acting out" in children as an
unconscious way to get attention. This would explain his frequent visits to the psychiatrist. But, clearly, Elliots issues did not abate. Perhaps his
parents thought to glibly about their sons situation? Instead of considering their own role in helping him develop, they found a psychiatrist who gave
them the convenient diagnosis of "aspergers" - convenient because it doesn't implicate anything about them. An aspergers diagnosis means "genetic
in origin" and thus minimizes parental input in creating the pathology exhibited by their son. The years pass by, his parents relax back into their
routines, still not focused and mature enough to realize how badly disorganized Elliots mind had become, and seemingly only pay attention when his
ideation has become vocalized all over the internet - perhaps they were alerted to it by family friends. Still, they dont do much. Elliot afterall is
their product, and being comfortably into their 40's, they cant imagine another situation but the one they have. Of course, they would probably have
liked that Elliot was normal, but they weren't aware enough to realize that his personality and develop was a creature of their neglect.

This is what I think is most probable^^ The aspergers diagnosis is hardly tenable. Flat effect does not mean "aspergers". Idiotic psychiatrists who
pay little attention to attachment history i.e. developmental context, love, just LOVEEEE, easy biological explanations like aspergers. Perhaps
because psychiatry as a profession has grown indolent and rather ignorant of psychological explanations for pathology.

His killing people may have been a roll of the dice. If you combine bad parenting with a strange context (growing up in hollywood), and you give the
person experience after experience of struggling to connect with others; and you add a "dash" of absentee role models, people who could have helped
elliot deal with his problems, then you can get this horrible outcome.

But I suppose it's human nature to be superstitious and assume that he was just "evil" at his core - as opposed to bat-# crazy. Or, if you're
naive and think what one doctor says is fact, you'll opt with the aspergers diagnosis, ignorant of the fact that the condition itself is vague and
the thing which may have been interpreted as "aspergers" - i.e flat affect, could more plausibly be explained by developmental trauma.

I know you don't need convincing, but "attachment" really is a vital process for healthy psychological development. Unfortunately, it happens so
unconsciously for so many people that it's importance only becomes apparent in its absence.

Today I was reading the famous poem "invictus". It's basically about the strength of the human spirit, etc. As I read it, I thought to myself
"yes, this is a fantastic poem, definitely inspired..... but it is unaware of it's own presumptuousness". Human beings don't possess resilience
unless THEY"VE LEARNED IT FROM OTHERS. Resilience is otherwise known in neuropsychology as "affect regulation" i.e. ones ability to regulate
emotional states. Abilities like these aren't some "given", although they might seem so to us. Evolution doesn't equip us with this ability from
the get-go. Rather, it equips us with this skill VIA PARENTING. Why do, for example, parents speak to their babies in a markedly different way? That
is, why do they raise their voices and exaggerate intonation? This is a PRIMAL INSTINCT which is often treated as "there simply because its there".
This is what people think. We do it, but "we don't know why". Like sailors at sea suffering from scurvy, we don't know the value of something
until it's gone. Human beings need vitamin C from fruits and vegetables. The human organism depends on it for it to thrive. Likewise, human beings
have evolved a tendency of communicating with infants in a MARKED i.e. different way than they would with adults. Why is this? Developmental
Psychologists have come to a consensus that marked communication is designed to provide infants with a SENSE OF SELF. Why? When you speak normally to
someone, that is, what you say accurately represents your emotions in your voice, then I know that it is YOU I am speaking with. There is a one to one
correspondence between your emotional state and your speech. And this is what is received by the other person. But this way of speaking isn't
appropriate with a newborn infant, simply because a newborn infant doesn't have anything we can call a self. They aren't exactly a blank slate
either, they do have primitive instincts and they're brains are designed to follow a certain developmental pathway, but in order for these capacities
to unfold, it has to be exposed to the proper external stimuli.

Marked communication allows the newborn to feel a sense of safety and connection with it's environment. Real responses are too overwhelming. A mother
who reflects her true emotional states to her child is bound to create anxiety and fear in its mind. And how do people respond to anxiety and fear?
With alertness. The mothers state, or conversely, the fathers state, becomes internalized in the baby as ITS OWN STATE. Because the self does not yet
exist - there are no reflective structures in place to distinguish emotional states as THEIR OWN - the baby exposed to frightening emotions i.e. real
emotions (something people with borderline personality tendencies can't help but ingrain in their children...hence it is a vicious self perpetuating
pathology) will come to see the world in a similar way. If mommy always reacts angrily when the baby makes a mistake, then the baby is likely going to
show the same lack of impulse control. The exact direction that pathology takes may be dependent on genetics (i.e one can turn inwards and develop
intense shyness and lack of affect, or conversely, will be unruly and abusive in their relationships with others) but this too can be modulated by
intensity of disorder.

I suspect that Elliot had extremely negligent parents. His dad probably was/is a narcissist, who dated frequently. His struggles to become a director
of movies - and not commercials - was likely a frequent topic of conversation at home. And of course in these conversations, frustration and anger was
heard in the voice. So I think it's absolutely safe to say that Elliot likely internalized these same sort of values. Life meant "money, cars, and
women".

However, many kids grow up in this sort of context and don't go on to develop a borderline pathology and certainly do not go on rampages. This means
Elliots father-mother may have been abusive and negligent in other ways. I am leaning towards negligent, as his mother seemed to be preoccupied with
dating rich directors like George Lucas while his dad was out finding work. This forlorn environment often leads to "acting out" in children as an
unconscious way to get attention. This would explain his frequent visits to the psychiatrist. But, clearly, Elliots issues did not abate. Perhaps his
parents thought to glibly about their sons situation? Instead of considering their own role in helping him develop, they found a psychiatrist who gave
them the convenient diagnosis of "aspergers" - convenient because it doesn't implicate anything about them. An aspergers diagnosis means "genetic
in origin" and thus minimizes parental input in creating the pathology exhibited by their son. The years pass by, his parents relax back into their
routines, still not focused and mature enough to realize how badly disorganized Elliots mind had become, and seemingly only pay attention when his
ideation has become vocalized all over the internet - perhaps they were alerted to it by family friends. Still, they dont do much. Elliot afterall is
their product, and being comfortably into their 40's, they cant imagine another situation but the one they have. Of course, they would probably have
liked that Elliot was normal, but they weren't aware enough to realize that his personality and develop was a creature of their neglect.

This is what I think is most probable^^ The aspergers diagnosis is hardly tenable. Flat effect does not mean "aspergers". Idiotic psychiatrists who
pay little attention to attachment history i.e. developmental context, love, just LOVEEEE, easy biological explanations like aspergers. Perhaps
because psychiatry as a profession has grown indolent and rather ignorant of psychological explanations for pathology.

His killing people may have been a roll of the dice. If you combine bad parenting with a strange context (growing up in hollywood), and you give the
person experience after experience of struggling to connect with others; and you add a "dash" of absentee role models, people who could have helped
elliot deal with his problems, then you can get this horrible outcome.

But I suppose it's human nature to be superstitious and assume that he was just "evil" at his core - as opposed to bat-# crazy. Or, if you're
naive and think what one doctor says is fact, you'll opt with the aspergers diagnosis, ignorant of the fact that the condition itself is vague and
the thing which may have been interpreted as "aspergers" - i.e flat affect, could more plausibly be explained by developmental trauma.

a reply to: Astrocyte
I suspect you are right. It's how he was raised. He obviously had insecurities. His aunt said he was always a disturbed kid, so they knew he was
messed up in the head. Growing up in that society can't be normal. He might have had a nanny who took care of him. Absentee parents that pay others
to do their job. . I don't think real values are taught in those situations.

One common factor with these young murderers is they are loners. They claim to feel different or out of place and develop a hatred of the world.

I do accept that his parents should have been more on the ball and perhaps this could have been avoided. That's really the only lesson that can be
learnt from this.

Trying to blame the rest of society for his actions just struck me as weak and somewhat pathetic. He was bitter that he couldn't get a girl, here's
a tip: Drop your standards. Stop going for the beautiful, skinny, airhead blondes that wouldn't even fart your way.

I ask myself, why do some people not attempt to self-correct? It's obvious to me from reading some of his manifesto that he did not attempt it at
all. So, can we blame his family - who by the way state that he was 'disturbed' - for not intervening in a more aggressive way? How many of us have
family members that are disturbed, but we are helpless to assist them due to many factors? If he was truly a delusional narcissist then I believe he
needed professional help that his family were not equipped to give.

I know you don't need convincing, but "attachment" really is a vital process for healthy psychological development. Unfortunately, it happens so
unconsciously for so many people that it's importance only becomes apparent in its absence.

Today I was reading the famous poem "invictus". It's basically about the strength of the human spirit, etc. As I read it, I thought to myself
"yes, this is a fantastic poem, definitely inspired..... but it is unaware of it's own presumptuousness". Human beings don't possess resilience
unless THEY"VE LEARNED IT FROM OTHERS.

INDEED. And with several generations of RAD [Reactive Attachment Disorder] tumbling down into the laps of the current generation . . . who's around
to teach even the basics? Sigh.

Resilience is otherwise known in neuropsychology as "affect regulation" i.e. ones ability to regulate emotional states. Abilities like these aren't
some "given", although they might seem so to us. Evolution doesn't equip us with this ability from the get-go. Rather, it equips us with this skill
VIA PARENTING.
.

Why do, for example, parents speak to their babies in a markedly different way? That is, why do they raise their voices and exaggerate intonation?
This is a PRIMAL INSTINCT which is often treated as "there simply because its there". This is what people think. We do it, but "we don't know
why". Like sailors at sea suffering from scurvy, we don't know the value of something until it's gone. Human beings need vitamin C from fruits and
vegetables. The human organism depends on it for it to thrive.

.

Likewise, human beings have evolved a tendency of communicating with infants in a MARKED i.e. different way than they would with adults. Why is this?
Developmental Psychologists have come to a consensus that marked communication is designed to provide infants with a SENSE OF SELF.
.

Why? When you speak normally to someone, that is, what you say accurately represents your emotions in your voice, then I know that it is YOU I am
speaking with. There is a one to one correspondence between your emotional state and your speech. And this is what is received by the other person.
.

But this way of speaking isn't appropriate with a newborn infant, simply because a newborn infant doesn't have anything we can call a self. They
aren't exactly a blank slate either, they do have primitive instincts and they're brains are designed to follow a certain developmental pathway,
but in order for these capacities to unfold, it has to be exposed to the proper external stimuli.
.

Marked communication allows the newborn to feel a sense of safety and connection with it's environment. Real responses are too overwhelming. A mother
who reflects her true emotional states to her child is bound to create anxiety and fear in its mind. And how do people respond to anxiety and fear?
With alertness.
.

The mothers state, or conversely, the fathers state, becomes internalized in the baby as ITS OWN STATE. Because the self does not yet exist - there
are no reflective structures in place to distinguish emotional states as THEIR OWN - the baby exposed to frightening emotions i.e. real emotions
(something people with borderline personality tendencies can't help but ingrain in their children...hence it is a vicious self perpetuating
pathology) will come to see the world in a similar way.
.

If mommy always reacts angrily when the baby makes a mistake, then the baby is likely going to show the same lack of impulse control. The exact
direction that pathology takes may be dependent on genetics (i.e one can turn inwards and develop intense shyness and lack of affect, or conversely,
will be unruly and abusive in their relationships with others) but this too can be modulated by intensity of disorder.
.

I suspect that Elliot had extremely negligent parents. His dad probably was/is a narcissist, who dated frequently. His struggles to become a director
of movies - and not commercials - was likely a frequent topic of conversation at home. And of course in these conversations, frustration and anger was
heard in the voice. So I think it's absolutely safe to say that Elliot likely internalized these same sort of values. Life meant "money, cars, and
women".
.

I think that's more than a plausible conjecture. But the cultural propaganda also perpetuated a similar mentality and focus.

However, many kids grow up in this sort of context and don't go on to develop a borderline pathology and certainly do not go on rampages. This means
Elliots father-mother may have been abusive and negligent in other ways. I am leaning towards negligent, as his mother seemed to be preoccupied with
dating rich directors like George Lucas while his dad was out finding work. This forlorn environment often leads to "acting out" in children as an
unconscious way to get attention.
.

Well put. Quite plausible.

This would explain his frequent visits to the psychiatrist. But, clearly, Elliots issues did not abate. Perhaps his parents thought to glibly about
their sons situation? Instead of considering their own role in helping him develop, they found a psychiatrist who gave them the convenient diagnosis
of "aspergers" - convenient because it doesn't implicate anything about them. An aspergers diagnosis means "genetic in origin" and thus minimizes
parental input in creating the pathology exhibited by their son.

As with most derelict parenting . . . farm the problem out . . . enough to moderate the guilt for not stepping up to the parenting plate . . . but
mostly carry on the irresponsible LACK of parenting day in and day out, STILL. Anything goes wrong--there's always the therapy receipts to point to.

And, too many jerk therapists refuse to involve the parents in the process in a fitting FAMILY SYSTEMS strategy. Sigh.

The years pass by, his parents relax back into their routines, still not focused and mature enough to realize how badly disorganized Elliots mind had
become, and seemingly only pay attention when his ideation has become vocalized all over the internet - perhaps they were alerted to it by family
friends. Still, they dont do much. Elliot afterall is their product, and being comfortably into their 40's, they cant imagine another situation but
the one they have. Of course, they would probably have liked that Elliot was normal, but they weren't aware enough to realize that his personality
and develop was a creature of their neglect.

INDEED. Nor would they likely have known or cared SUFFICIENTLY to do what was necessary. Playing catch-up on bonding--particularly with a challenging
kid genetics-wise . . . takes a lot of doing.

This is what I think is most probable^^ The aspergers diagnosis is hardly tenable. Flat effect does not mean "aspergers". Idiotic psychiatrists who
pay little attention to attachment history i.e. developmental context, love, just LOVEEEE, easy biological explanations like aspergers. Perhaps
because psychiatry as a profession has grown indolent and rather ignorant of psychological explanations for pathology.

My opinion is that it is the liberal/progressive's fault for this kid.

Progressive policies, like everyone getting a trophy, or blaming all others for your failure, or playing the victim is what liberal/progressives are
all about.

Now their policies won't create killers out of all youths, but the weak and cowardly will rush towards these policies to bolster their own "self
image" and blame others.

The kid never learned how to lose.

He never learned how to cope with failure.

As far as I'm concerned, is the progressives who own what happened to this kid. THEY created the environment where this type of behavior can and
will flourish.

We've had firearms since the inception of this nation. But is just been the past few decades where this type of event has become prevalent. What's
changed? The wussification of our youth and the enabling of progressive/liberal policies within our schools and society.

However, many kids grow up in this sort of context and don't go on to develop a borderline pathology and certainly do not go on rampages.

True. However, you likely know that millions of such kids-with-years vs properly parented maturing kids . . . are running around raging accidents
waiting to happen . . . or at best . . . disasters in family relationships and work relationships leaving plenty of DESTRUCTION in their wake . . .
whether it rises to the level of 'rampages' with guns & knives, or not.

This means Elliots father-mother may have been abusive and negligent in other ways. I am leaning towards negligent, as his mother seemed to be
preoccupied with dating rich directors like George Lucas while his dad was out finding work. This forlorn environment often leads to "acting out" in
children as an unconscious way to get attention. This would explain his frequent visits to the psychiatrist.

I love the old Dr Murry Banks audio . . . WHAT TO DO UNTIL THE PSYCHIATRIST COMES . . .

I've long noted that . . . one way or another . . . kids have a way of MAKING the parents pay. Parents who refuse to pay in suitable time, affection,
focus, attention . . . will pay in therapist fees, atny's fees, sleepless nights, humiliation etc.

But, clearly, Elliots issues did not abate. Perhaps his parents thought to glibly about their sons situation? Instead of considering their own role in
helping him develop, they found a psychiatrist who gave them the convenient diagnosis of "aspergers" - convenient because it doesn't implicate
anything about them. An aspergers diagnosis means "genetic in origin" and thus minimizes parental input in creating the pathology exhibited by their
son.

Convenient . . . to a degree . . . for a time . . . sigh.

Who was to have taught THEM what parenting was about. Evidently NOT their own parents! NOT the culture! Sigh.

The years pass by, his parents relax back into their routines, still not focused and mature enough to realize how badly disorganized Elliots mind had
become, and seemingly only pay attention when his ideation has become vocalized all over the internet - perhaps they were alerted to it by family
friends. Still, they dont do much. Elliot afterall is their product, and being comfortably into their 40's, they cant imagine another situation but
the one they have. Of course, they would probably have liked that Elliot was normal, but they weren't aware enough to realize that his personality
and develop was a creature of their neglect.

That still boggles my mind. I saw it with my mother and step-dad and the baby they adopted. . . . on and off drugs and in and out of
detention/jail/prison from 12 years on. And all my parents could do was blame her druggy parents genetics. Sigh.

And, of course, from their perspective, I didn't have anything to offer worth listening to--I only had PhD in clinical psych and they already knew
that the mental health professionals in the system were all idiots so . . . sigh.

I don't know that they ever had a clue about their part in NOT ATTACHING at a young age. Mother had the idiotic notion that a baby diapered, fed,
held for 10 min could just wail in their crib for 2-3 hours, if that was the baby's want. Sheesh. And wail she did--at a very high pitched intensely
shrill wail. . . . crying out for affection, belonging, attachment.

This is what I think is most probable^^ The aspergers diagnosis is hardly tenable. Flat effect does not mean "aspergers". Idiotic psychiatrists who
pay little attention to attachment history i.e. developmental context, love, just LOVEEEE, easy biological explanations like aspergers. Perhaps
because psychiatry as a profession has grown indolent and rather ignorant of psychological explanations for pathology.

I think major percentages of psychiatrists were TRAINED to be indolent. . . . it's the style . . . Some are decent FAMILY SYSTEMS people but too many
are too clueless.

His killing people may have been a roll of the dice. If you combine bad parenting with a strange context (growing up in hollywood), and you give the
person experience after experience of struggling to connect with others; and you add a "dash" of absentee role models, people who could have helped
elliot deal with his problems, then you can get this horrible outcome.

You left out the horrific violent memes, themes, modeling, etc. lavishly propagandized from Hollyweed. The "beautiful people' routinely are idolized
doing a LOT OF VERY HORRIFIC interpersonal destructiveness.

But I suppose it's human nature to be superstitious and assume that he was just "evil" at his core - as opposed to bat-# crazy. Or, if you're
naive and think what one doctor says is fact, you'll opt with the aspergers diagnosis, ignorant of the fact that the condition itself is vague and
the thing which may have been interpreted as "aspergers" - i.e flat affect, could more plausibly be explained by developmental trauma.

Agreed. Thx. Nice to see someone with some good reality testing on such threads. LOL.

No offense, I already took the time reading parts of his manifesto (It's 107,000 words long, which would be a very long novel, so I'm not going to
waste my time reading the whole thing). So I've only read the abridged version.

And secondly, as a psychologist...

As a psychologist I would think that you would know that creating a diagnosis, particularly as complex a one as borderline personality disorder, from
what you've gleaned from the media (after not even bothering to read the complete manifesto) is professionally irresponsible. Further, throwing that
entire "diagnosis" of borderline personality at the feet of his parents in a frothing internet screed is morally reprehensible. If you are a
psychologist (and I do sincerely hope you are simply indulging in some internet exaggeration) it is just proof that the ranks of mental health are
indeed full of angry, crazy shrinks.

There was clearly a distorted sense of entitlement and likely narcissistic personality traits all focused through a misogynistic lens. He was
isolated, socially awkward and sexually frustrated. This is all we know for sure. There may be a personality disorder skewing the mix and it may
even be BPD, but it would be difficult to be that specific with the information that we have.

What is tripping me up the most though is how much effort you are putting into blaming his parents. Spending so much time spewing hate and bile their
direction just tells me that you have a disproportionate emotional aspect distorting your own perspective. (Please note, I wouldn't even begin to
guess the"etiology" of that distortion or toss a diagnosis your way).

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: theantediluvian
What I do know, is that borderline patients tend to have extremely distorted ideas about their parents and other relationships.

Well this is true, but so do a whole host of other psychological issues, albeit many of those do not have quite the focus on relationships as BPD.
Making a diagnosis on one (rather casually observed) criteria is foolish. Also, even if you hit this bulls-eye blind and Elliot Roger did have BPD
there are other factors and causes besides "bad parenting". What if he was sexually abused as a child by a relative?

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: theantediluvian
Borderline people don't recognize that they don't relate to the world in a normal way. They literally have defense systems in their mind preventing
them from mentalizing (giving cognitive representation to) what they're feeling. As such, the majority of their views are distorted by their
unrecognized emotional dynamics.

This is also true, but again there are other mental illnesses where anosognosia is a feature.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
Developmental psychology and neuroscience has given us very good reason to believe that the bulk of the adult personality is predicated upon early
life engagements. The infant brain is only 20% completed. The first 2-3 years of life is where the majority of the limbic system and higher emotional
centers develop. This means environmental factors - signals from the parent - GUIDE gene transcription in neurons and thus brain development.

There is quite a bit of debate on this actually. The nature vs. nurture argument will likely never be settled in terms of what percentage of what
goes where with whom in many circumstances in psychology.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
Elliot was as #ed as he was because his parents did a very very bad job helping him develop a sense of self.

You have no proof of this, only conjecture and a rant that you are attempting to bolster (immorally so) with your (alleged) credentials. We certainly
cannot tell anything about the role of his parents in any disruption in his identity development.

As a mental health professional using your credentials to justify and incite animosity toward Elliot Roger's parents is completely out of line and if
I knew who you were I would report you to your state's Committee on Professional Ethics.

Before anyone is reaches down to pick up that stone, I suggest that you stop, turn around, and take a hard look at your own children. No, better yet,
ask someone that doesn’t have any skin in the game, for an accurate assessment of your child.

I am surrounded by people everyday that seem to either have blinders on or they suddenly lose the ability to see clearly, the moment they lay eyes on
“their” child. Everyone is so astute, so clinical, such an expert when it comes to observations, diagnosing, labeling and gifted with just the
right cure, when it is “someone else’s” child.

Of course, I am going to be bombarded and flamed by most, because they are convinced that this is true of “other” people, but they either have
perfect children they raised with extreme love and express attention, resulting in the next perfect member of our society.

Even if your child is perfect in “your” eyes, step back and try to see what people outside of your sphere of influence sees. Try to see your child
without blinders, expectations, or prejudices. You may be surprised.

Now I am pretty sure it will make no difference what- so-ever, what I say or anyone else says. I live this. I have nieces and nephews and they are far
from perfect, of course, no one is. However, I have given up attempting to talk to my siblings about their children. They immediately go on the
defensive and I could write 20 encyclopedias sized books, if I wrote down every excuse they have come up with for their child’s inappropriate
behavior, and not one time was it “their” child’s fault. I apologize to my siblings up front, and tell them that I know that they are not going
to be happy with me. I then take the child or children with the inappropriate behavior aside and tell him/her/them what “I” found inappropriate
about their behavior. I discuss with them why they think what they did was right, find out if they understand why I found it not to be acceptable, and
have them come up with a better way of handling the situation in the future. My siblings are not always very happy about my approach, and for those
that find it overly offensive that I dare accuse their perfect child of any wrongdoing, and fail to understand their lame excuse for the behavior, we
have agreed to disagree. Their children are not allowed in my home, because once you step into Auntie’s yard, Auntie’s rules automatically go into
effect. This banishment never lasts very long. I admit that it is partly because Nana lives with Auntie, so no Auntie’s house, no Nana; unless Nana
comes to see them, which she does often enough. But they know Auntie’s rules of civility, respect, sharing and good behavior, are not that hard to
do, and Auntie’s house has lots of fun stuff to do and with lots of good stuff to eat. I even had a sister call me about a conversation she had with
her 4 year old granddaughter. She said she told her granddaughter she was taking her soon to see Big Nana. The child said I like Big Nana’s house
and Auntie. She said I thought you said Auntie was mean. Her granddaughter said “Not all the time and she really loves me.” My sister said she
asked her when is Auntie mean. Her granddaughter said “When I am being bad.” My sister said she was surprised, so she asked her granddaughter if
she knew when she was being bad. She told her “Yeah, but I sometimes am bad because you and mommy won’t do what I say.” I told her, “I rest my
case.”

Very few people actually see, know, or even understand their children. Most people think that love is something that you show a child by giving into
their desires, and even more try to erase or fix their own childhoods by providing their children with all the things they felt was missing or they
wished for in their own. It is not easy being a parent. It is the toughest job anyone can take on and there is no primer or Parenting for Dummies
books that are going to make it easy or will work 100% of the time. You have to “know” your child. What works for one child may not work for
another. There are no cookie cutter instructions or solutions for what your child needs. You should be your child’s center. They should not have to
find love, attention, acceptance, strength, courage, pleasure, and comfort from videos games and make believe. It times a lot of time, energy, and
commitment to be a parent. It is 24/7, no time off. No holidays. No vacations. It was hard when people had less distractions. They had few possessions
but they found pleasure in small things and the company of others. It is much harder now but it is still doable. And you will never get 100% right
100% of the time.

The only things IMHO that works 100% of the time is establishing boundaries, (it is a big scary world, children need to know what areas are safe and
those that aren’t), discipline, (children shouldn’t have to find out what is right or wrong, by trial and error), consistency, (children have to
know they can trust you and you will be true to your words), honesty and trust, ( children have to be able to believe you or nothing else matters),
responsibility, (children have to know that their actions have consequences and that they are an integral part of the world they live in, that their
words, and deeds have power), and love.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.